[Mr. Nobody]

The speed of light in vacuum does not vary depending on gravity. It is my understanding that all that happens to light in presence of force fields is a loss of energy represented by a shift of the spectrum
This is relativity; that we travel through space and time in a tracetory reflecting the sum of travel through time and space because C in vacuum remains constant, no matter what.
So, what about the expansion, the missing mass and how to interpret that. I can't remember where I read it, but somewher it was stated that we still do not have an accurate measurenment of G and that over great distances when a lot of mass is involved G proves to be weaker than thought. That could perhaps the simplest answer and appears to me as the most logical explanation of the increasing expansion of space.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Nobody

"Existance made form-al by the process of intention rendered "down" to manifest as form?"

Judging by this, it seems that you're saying existence was formless.

What would be the exact nature of that primal existence then?

Nobody,thanks for the reply;Pure existance is formless,because it is entire
and complete within itself,what shape is love,do we deny its existance?
The exact nature of this primal existance would be wholly whole and complete within itself?

kindcregards michael.

[Nobody]

Mr. Nobody,

Perhaps you could try locate that book or article, because I don't quite follow your thoughts on gravity. I was referring to the constant itself, that it would be set at that 300,000 km/s based on the energy in the vacuum relative to the gravitational constant - it's not a true vacuum. In a true vacuum, light speed would be infinite and account for the accelerated expansion, yet light would slow because of the increased energy emitted when there is an increase in distance between massive objects. So there would be less gravitational pull allowing for accelerated expansion (exterior), as well as increased energy density which would account for redshifting (interior).

Michael,

I think a body and brain is required for love to exist, and the same would have to apply for the primal existence. There would have to be a primal substance in order for the "whole" to exist, no?

[Mr. Nobody]

Its a theory to explain galaxy behaviour without envoking dark energy
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/2/4

Now its your turn, I can't follow your thoughts on light speed in true vacuum (define true vacuum first)

Thanks

[mkirkpatrick]

I was tempted to say mr nobody,but that is someone else!Well then Nobody,
in reply to your 1st question,body and brain are required for love to exist!Not
so!I can fully understand where you are coming from?But the reality of love
needs absolutely nothing to exist,for it is the very embodiment of life itself!
Energy is an expression of love,so to the interactions of atoms and subatomic
particles,they have there mutual affinities=attractions?And of course the
opposite the repulsions (hate) the other side of love,which is also expressed
in the universal pulses of Ying and Yang?Positive and negitive.Love is the
result of focussed ideation resulting in the in-forming process and "cloaking
down" thought,so that it can take form?And exhibit itself by the affinity
brought about through intention,and "held" together by love!
Now with regard the primal substance?And the whole!The primal substance
arose when the intention was focussed?The whole has always been,and by the way,it as a Whole is wholly without any substance whatsoever?
kind regards michael.

[Nobody]

Mr. Nobody,

A true vacuum is a vacuum without the vacuum-energy density, with which the speed of light is infinite. In essence, light at infinite speed and the true vacuum are one and the same. Yet, as I've mentioned a few times on this forum, an expandable universe is an impossibility. So my picture of the universe and related forces are such that light is everywhere and nowhere in particular at the same time, and illusory movement is created by incrementally quantizing absolute space. In other words, all natural phenomena is based on reductions of infinite velocity.

Thanks for the interesting article.

Michael,

If love is equated with the positive, hate with the negative, they would cancel to zero. So I don't see how the reality of love needs absolutely nothing to exist. And of the whole is wholly without substance, how can you say it exists? Or rather, what is it existing as?

[mkirkpatrick]

Nobody,thanks for getting back to me.
I suppose that attraction and repulsion would have been better examples
of love,rather than the words positive and negitive.I can see your point about cancelling each other out.I suppose the difficulty is in the understanding of the particular law,which is as you are aware of universal
in application,and ubiquitous in practise.Outside of human consciousness,
the universal law of love,or self affinity,operates in a seemingly automatic
manner?But when this law enters the orbit ofa human being,who the capacity
to be self aware,and self-questioning,then rather than being a purely automatic process,the "law" takes "on" a personal aspect?And is interpreted
bythat individual and assigns its self to the individuals level on the
evolutionary cycle of expansion.
The last point is even more difficult to answer!What is existing then,that is
whole and wholly without substance?Well the simple answer to that is LIFE?
The absolute,GOD,Has no attributes,no substance,a complete absence of
all we can possibly know,words fail at this point Nobody,that is why those
very wise and noble sages ofthe east,have said for the past ten thousand
years,that GOD just IS?There is no other sensible thing to add,or can be
added!
kind regards michael.

[Nobody]

The same is written about the Tao, "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao," but even if a billion sages over a billion years couldn't understand it, that doesn't mean that it can't be understood.

God just IS, but is what? God must be nothing, just like the absolute universe ceases to exist without differentiation. Relatively speaking, the universe, God, exists based on genetic conditioning that promotes illusory senses of reality, but as a whole there is no whole. The whole negates itself.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Nobody

The same is written about the Tao, "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao," but even if a billion sages over a billion years couldn't understand it, that doesn't mean that it can't be understood.

God just IS, but is what? God must be nothing, just like the absolute universe ceases to exist without differentiation. Relatively speaking, the universe, God, exists based on genetic conditioning that promotes illusory senses of reality, but as a whole there is no whole. The whole negates itself.

Nobody,I understand truly where you are coming from,God just IS,Is what you ask?It has taken me nearly 50 years wrestling with this question,to realize that to add more to IS-is absolutely FUTILE?You are dealing with a
BEING that is totally and absolutely beyond human comprehension!And always will be!To fully understand theAbsolute you would have to become
Absolute?

kind regards michael.

[Nobody]

No offence intended, Michael, but it's a cop out. I'm not attempting to add to the IS, but to take away the IS altogether to define what it is not. It cannot be a magical Being "just because" because this Being would have to exist in a place that isn't there.

The only possible absolute state for the "universe" (which is a misleading label) is zero because once we refer to it as "one" it creates a dichotomy paradox of the "one" on the inside and the none on the outside; but if there is only zero, then the paradox disappears. There is then none on the inside and none on the outside - hence it is absolute.